McCain Kicks Obama's Butt at Debate

[kchoya]

At least according to this pub:

www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789

Actually, I have no idea how each one did. I didn't watch and all I've read about is cone-of-silence-gate.

My gut is that McCain would be good in a town hall format, but I'm not sure in a classic debate format. I didn't pay enough attention to the democratic debates to see how Obama does without a teleprompter.

Any one see the Rick Warren sessions?

[jerseyhoya34]

I watched both hours. Preliminarily, I don't think this session has any legs in the media cycle with the Olympics, VP speculation, etc. I found it strange in many respects and thought Warren and his Church came across more as Californian than evangelical. I laughed at the "cone of silence" from the beginning. It sounded more like a Magic Card than an effort at fairness. (If you don't get the reference, don't look it up.)

It wasn't a debate either. It is hard to really call it anything since the candidates treated it differently.

I thought McCain probably "won" in the sense that he hit on all of the points on his list for the evening and Obama's performance didn't resonate to the same extent in a focus group environment. McCain told stories about his service in Vietnam that rightly help him in most crowds. He treated the evening as one of his town halls and directed his responses to the crowd. The crowd seemed more responsive to McCain, but that was probably to be expected given the occasion/venue and the fee for admission.

Obama treated the occasion as more of a conversation with Warren and seemed more intent on answering the questions posed than hitting on the laundry list of points. He didn't direct his substantive responses to the crowd. I am not sure how much it resonated on television. Still, I think he managed to escape unscathed to the extent that right wingers aren't pleading for him to be denied Communion or other such divisive things.

[SirSaxa]

The very idea that some evangelical televangelist from a megachurch is holding an event to interview presidential candidates on television is a scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country.

[FewFAC]

I like IBD a lot. I especially like the profiles. And I was surprised until I saw who published this. I want this election cycle to be over, because the spin is as ridiculous as a Gaylord Perry spitball. When did the right become about winning rather than doing the right thing? Regardless, I'd bet Obama massacres McCain in a real debate, and understood that he had to present himself as an arbiter of common sense to an audience wanting to get motivated to turnout for policies they can see have plainly failed. Besides, McCain will change course and cop to the exact opposite positions that he espoused at this "debate" throughout the campaign, especially when he nominates Lieberman (or Ridge), plus it's not like he's exactly organized on the ground.

[strummer8526]

Aug 19, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The very idea that some evangelical televangelist from a megachurch is holding an event to interview presidential candidates on television is a scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country.

Jesus wants me to be rich and make a lot of money, and I can't accomplish that with a president who dares to not cut my taxes.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Anybody besides me actually been to Saddleback Church? 99.9% of the congregation is voting "R" even if it's a monkey.

[EasyEd]

Aug 19, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The very idea that some evangelical televangelist from a megachurch is holding an event to interview presidential candidates on television is a scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country.

I presume this means you are also bitterly opposed to Democratic candidates for President speaking at predominantly African American churches. Or is it just when Evangelicals get involved that you consider it a "scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country"?

[SirSaxa]

Aug 20, 2008 10:40:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Aug 19, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The very idea that some evangelical televangelist from a megachurch is holding an event to interview presidential candidates on television is a scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country.

I presume this means you are also bitterly opposed to Democratic candidates for President speaking at predominantly African American churches. Or is it just when Evangelicals get involved that you consider it a "scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country"?

Shall I label your post a "typical response"?

If a Democratic candidate, or a Republican candidate, wants to address an African American community at their church, that is their right and privilege.

If Bush or McCain want to address Liberty College and Oral Roberts University, that is their choice.

But to hold a televised "debate", at a megachurch, moderated by an evangelical preacher who is asking all the questions? Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the vast difference between the first two examples and the last. But I find the very concept appalling and entirely inappropriate.

[thebin]

Aug 19, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The very idea that some evangelical televangelist from a megachurch is holding an event to interview presidential candidates on television is a scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country.

As a staunch libertarian who will almost certainly vote for McCain, I have to agree. It just gives me the skeeves.

[Bando]

Aug 20, 2008 10:40:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Aug 19, 2008 22:00:54 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The very idea that some evangelical televangelist from a megachurch is holding an event to interview presidential candidates on television is a scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country.

I presume this means you are also bitterly opposed to Democratic candidates for President speaking at predominantly African American churches. Or is it just when Evangelicals get involved that you consider it a "scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country"?

Um, you know evangelicals can be black, too, right?

[hifigator]

Speaking of typical ... Bando once again illustrated how it is ok for the left to play the race card, while entirely inappropriate for someone on the right to do so. As if it needed any clarification, obviously ed's point wasn't pertaining to the church members themselves or for that matter even their race. His point was that Obama's prominence at a very radical church ... and yes, it does happen to be almost exclusively african-American, but that's not the point ... Obama's prominence in such a church is fine, but "God forbid" such political issues get raised in an evangelical "right wing" venue.

And since you are the one who can't see the difference, I wonder if sirsaxa would feel as scared if the debate featrued Jeremiah Wright in addition or even instead.

[Bando]

Aug 20, 2008 12:19:47 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Speaking of typical ... Bando once again illustrated how it is ok for the left to play the race card, while entirely inappropriate for someone on the right to do so. As if it needed any clarification, obviously ed's point wasn't pertaining to the church members themselves or for that matter even their race. His point was that Obama's prominence at a very radical church ... and yes, it does happen to be almost exclusively african-American, but that's not the point ... Obama's prominence in such a church is fine, but "God forbid" such political issues get raised in an evangelical "right wing" venue.

And since you are the one who can't see the difference, I wonder if sirsaxa would feel as scared if the debate featrued Jeremiah Wright in addition or even instead.

I wasn't "playing the race card" (whatever the hell that means anymore), I was stating a fact to correct ed's analysis. The African-American churches he spoke of are most likely majority evangelical, and that should be taken into account when we speak of "evangelicals".

[EasyEd]

Aug 20, 2008 10:53:44 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Aug 20, 2008 10:40:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I presume this means you are also bitterly opposed to Democratic candidates for President speaking at predominantly African American churches. Or is it just when Evangelicals get involved that you consider it a "scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country"?

Shall I label your post a "typical response"?

If a Democratic candidate, or a Republican candidate, wants to address an African American community at their church, that is their right and privilege.

If Bush or McCain want to address Liberty College and Oral Roberts University, that is their choice.

But to hold a televised "debate", at a megachurch, moderated by an evangelical preacher who is asking all the questions? Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the vast difference between the first two examples and the last. But I find the very concept appalling and entirely inappropriate.

And your response was your "typical response".

Because of your possible biases, perhaps you are unable to comprehend that there is no difference between them as all are consistent with the free exercise of religion granted by the constitution. My questions: is the practice of Democratic Presidential candidates speaking from the pulpit (repeat, from the pulpit) of predominantly African American churches (or Moslem churches) something that sits well with you? You seem to indicate you're okay with this. Second question: in your opinion, is such a practice consistent with your views on the separation of church and state? Again, you seem to say you're okay with that. Third question: was the forum at Saddleback church consistent with the constitution's provision that the government impose no restrictions on the free exercise of religion?

It's also funny that no one seemed to out of sorts with the Saddleback forum until after Obama bombed in his responses. So the problem was obviously the forum itself. Yeh, right. If Obama had performed well in that forum, I doubt anyone would be objecting to it at all.

[kchoya]

Aug 20, 2008 10:53:44 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Aug 20, 2008 10:40:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I presume this means you are also bitterly opposed to Democratic candidates for President speaking at predominantly African American churches. Or is it just when Evangelicals get involved that you consider it a "scary indicator of just how far wrong things have gone in this country"?

Shall I label your post a "typical response"?

If a Democratic candidate, or a Republican candidate, wants to address an African American community at their church, that is their right and privilege.

If Bush or McCain want to address Liberty College and Oral Roberts University, that is their choice.

But to hold a televised "debate", at a megachurch, moderated by an evangelical preacher who is asking all the questions? Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the vast difference between the first two examples and the last. But I find the very concept appalling and entirely inappropriate.

Why does it bother you so much? I see no reason why this is inappropriate at all. You use the words megachurch and evangelical as though there's something inherently negative about the words.

[Boz]

Aug 20, 2008 8:19:13 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Anybody besides me actually been to Saddleback Church? 99.9% of the congregation is voting "R" even if it's a monkey.

I will certainly give Obama credit for going into hostile territory for this Q&A. I think Rick Warren played more than fair with him though. There were no cheap shot questions, he wasn't asked about Trinity United, hell, he wasn't really even asked about his voting record on abortion.

If Obama wants a friendlier environment for townhall meetings, I believe that John McCain has had an open invitation to him all summer that he can accept whenever he wants & get an equal crowd of Obama & McCain supporters asking questions.

This type of format is just not Obama's strength, plain and simple. He searches too much and he comes off as too abstract. Just like giving speeches is not John McCain's strength. I would be worried about the debates in the fall if I was an Obama supporter. And if I was John McCain, I would listen to Frank Luntz and forego an acceptance speech at the convention in favor of just another townhall meeting with the delegates. Sure, it's a stacked crowd like some (not all) of McCain's other townhalls, but it makes him look good. Just like speaking in front of 75,000 people makes Obama look good. And the media would lap it up, which could generate some buzz in an otherwise unbuzzworthy Republican National Convention.

As for a church hosting a Presidential discussion (this was not a debate), I really don't see what the big deal is.

[EasyEd]

I meant nothing racist in my reference to Democrats speaking from the pulpit of African American churches but only to state that African American churches seem to be the only Christian churches they appear. If they have appeared from the pulpit of other Christian churches. please enlighten me. It seems the public gives them a pass since it's at an African American church. Even a Democratic minister running for President has gotten a free pass.

[Elvado]

Senator Obama has to be careful about going into churches. Too many bitter people clinging to religion in those churches.

[thebin]

People in churches are not all bitter. Some of them are just stupid.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Aug 20, 2008 12:57:53 GMT -5 Boz said:

Aug 20, 2008 8:19:13 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Anybody besides me actually been to Saddleback Church? 99.9% of the congregation is voting "R" even if it's a monkey.

I will certainly give Obama credit for going into hostile territory for this Q&A. I think Rick Warren played more than fair with him though. There were no cheap shot questions, he wasn't asked about Trinity United, hell, he wasn't really even asked about his voting record on abortion.

If Obama wants a friendlier environment for townhall meetings, I believe that John McCain has had an open invitation to him all summer that he can accept whenever he wants & get an equal crowd of Obama & McCain supporters asking questions.

This type of format is just not Obama's strength, plain and simple. He searches too much and he comes off as too abstract. Just like giving speeches is not John McCain's strength. I would be worried about the debates in the fall if I was an Obama supporter. And if I was John McCain, I would listen to Frank Luntz and forego an acceptance speech at the convention in favor of just another townhall meeting with the delegates. Sure, it's a stacked crowd like some (not all) of McCain's other townhalls, but it makes him look good. Just like speaking in front of 75,000 people makes Obama look good. And the media would lap it up, which could generate some buzz in an otherwise unbuzzworthy Republican National Convention.

As for a church hosting a Presidential discussion (this was not a debate), I really don't see what the big deal is.

True on all points, Boz. My point was simply that, from having been there, it can be intimidating even if you're not talking---there are some very opinoned and vocal folks at Saddleback. I can only imagine being a Democratic candidate and speaking there. By all accounts the congregation and Warren treated both candidates very well. Cool format; I'd like to see more non-traditional debate venues like that.

[Elvado]

I forgot that. Busy cleaning my gun to which I also cling bitterly.